On 6/21/11 5:13 PM, Mark Hatle wrote: > I like that better then trying to wrap do_install and such with special code. > > It should be fairly easy to set the default for do_install and do_package > then. > I wonder if there would be a way to "notice" and flag as possible errors > tasks > running between do_install and do_package (in a single recipe) that may need > the > umask set as well. > > --Mark
I worked out a patch to bitbake for this: http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/bitbake&id=abc25d84b3c0b766bb5d45c0354936eaa4d605c4 The associated changes to oe-core: Revert of the original umask patch: http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/perms&id=845ae082627c6a25304e10e72c655e9197f62c01 New patch that enables umask is specific areas: http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/perms&id=03eb6afb4d1d40ef421085d847cbc42e1795863f --- Any comments. I'm not sure I like this task approach, simply because it's more complicated. But what I am testing now enables umask of 022 in: do_install do_package do_rootfs rootfs_<pkg>_do_rootfs do_populate_sysroot adt-installer_1.0.bb: do_deploy linux-tools.inc: do_install_perf I think that covers everywhere it will be needed... --Mark > On 6/21/11 5:05 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 14:12 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: >>> On 6/21/11 1:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 11:43 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: >>>>> Adjust the umask to 022. This resolves the problem of dynamically >>>>> generated >>>>> directories (mkdir -p) and specific files (touch foo) having odd >>>>> permissions. >>>>> >>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/perms&id=d8470b6a8efdbba04cef5d4dc1ce12720fe83621 >>>> >>>> Are you confident that this isn't going to break anything like >>>> group-shared DL_DIRs? I'm not entirely thrilled about forcing the umask >>>> to 022 for everything that bitbake does, although I can see that making >>>> it be so for particular tasks like do_install() might have some merit. >>>> Even in the latter case, though, I wonder whether we should just be >>>> paying more attention to recipe hygiene and using "install -m ..." with >>>> the permissions that we actually want. >>> >>> This is why I bring this up.. I'm a bit concerned that doing it generally >>> will >>> have unintended consequences. So far I am not aware of any. Moving it to a >>> different place in the process may be better. The only issue I've found so >>> far >>> is that just coding int into "do_install" really isn't an option. Between >>> the >>> custom do_install components, various classes, etc.. it's difficult in the >>> current infrastructure to find a centralized location to set the value. >>> >>> (I'd love to be corrected if someone things of another way of doing it.) >>> The >>> setting of the umask is a very low cost operation, so doing it for certain >>> steps >>> shouldn't cause a performance penalty... but until we figure that out this >>> is >>> the best and easiest solution I've come up with. >> >> How about a umask flag for tasks? >> >> If bitbake sees it for a given task it would set the umask as indicated >> for the task. Cheap and easy and would only impact do_install tasks... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
